The last one got derailed by a couple of idiots who combined have a brain cell count of negative 6, so im moving this thing to over here since the old one is pending deletion.

For those who dont know what im talking about, The Weekly Stupid returns this Friday, and ive always had a group of people on a committee in a PM to help me decide what should + shouldnt be on the top 10, and which spots each statement should come in. Its been a while though, to the point where some people who were in the group have actually left the site while others were booted for not even posting in them.....So im opening up signups again for people who wanna help make the show. Only condition is that YOU CANT BE AN IDIOT or anyone else at a genuine risk of ending up in the top 10....

This is the currently list of people who signed up. I have 11, ill probably stop at around 13 or so, so if you want one of the last two spots then just say so

Oh boy, sign me up! I'd just love to belittle people whom have different opinions to me! Maybe we could even make a few people so angry that they leave the site! Or even better, we could make people feel miserable about their lives to the point where they don't want to be alive anymore! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! How funny would that be!? LMFAO!!!!!

"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher

At 1/13/2014 12:22:08 AM, Caploxion wrote:Oh boy, sign me up! I'd just love to belittle people whom have different opinions to me!

I don't believe the show focuses on difference of opinions. It certainly doesn't differentiate between any right-left political dynamic or any other. While some may have been borderline, I don't think I've ever seen something that most would consider a simple difference of opinion. While that may have been the case in a few instances, I think the show focuses mostly on statements that were clearly not well thought out.

Maybe we could even make a few people so angry that they leave the site!

If this was a serious risk from the show it wouldn't be allowed, but I don't believe this is the case. If I'm wrong I'd like to be proven wrong, as it certainly would be a problem then. From what I can tell, a very small percentage of the site actually knows it exists, and those who are put on the show somewhat regularly are still around. I've gotten complaints from a few members, but none of them have ever expressed anger to this degree. If any members actually do feel this way they should contact me so that I can reevaluate my position on it.

But so far, the opinions I've gotten from members contacting me has been mostly of support. While much of it has also been reluctant support, it has been far from saying that it shouldn't be allowed.

Or even better, we could make people feel miserable about their lives to the point where they don't want to be :alive anymore! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! How funny would that be!? LMFAO!!!!!

This is fairly melodramatic and unnecessary. I take these types of issues very seriously, and if a member who is using this site is being harmed by the site to this extent they should discontinue their use of it. While I certainly don't condone any behavior that would potentially cause psychological damage to anyone, members need to use a certain amount of discretion in recognizing if a site based upon heated arguments is something they can handle mentally.

The nature of the site is to accommodate heated arguments, while we certainly want to facilitate a civil and healthy atmosphere, sometimes those arguments can become too much for some. It is in the nature of some individuals to take issues too personally, and to take personal offense in disagreements. Those types of individuals should certainly limit their use of the site.

In the context of this particular issue, I would also say that members need to be a bit thick skinned to not only handle DDO, but also the internet in general. While I certainly don't condone personal attacks, stating that a statement is unwise (or stupid as the case may be) facilitates an argument about it, and that's what the site is about.

So I don't believe anything you said above accurately describes the situation. The Weekly Stupid might not be ideal, but it certainly hasn't run anyone off the site, and anyone who has the types of emotional problem that may cause them to bring harm upon themselves by their use of the site or viewing something like the Weekly Stupid should limit (if not outright discontinue) their use of the site.

At 1/13/2014 12:22:08 AM, Caploxion wrote:Oh boy, sign me up! I'd just love to belittle people whom have different opinions to me!

I don't believe the show focuses on difference of opinions. It certainly doesn't differentiate between any right-left political dynamic or any other. While some may have been borderline, I don't think I've ever seen something that most would consider a simple difference of opinion. While that may have been the case in a few instances, I think the show focuses mostly on statements that were clearly not well thought out.

If there's one thing that I've learned in life, it's that the best solutions are often counter-intuitive. With this show, the focus is on the superficial meaning, the visceral reaction, rather than the carefully considered thought. Maybe people involved with the production of the show could give thought as to why the person making the comment decided to say it, instead of immediately lambasting it.

Maybe we could even make a few people so angry that they leave the site!

If this was a serious risk from the show it wouldn't be allowed, but I don't believe this is the case. If I'm wrong I'd like to be proven wrong, as it certainly would be a problem then. From what I can tell, a very small percentage of the site actually knows it exists, and those who are put on the show somewhat regularly are still around. I've gotten complaints from a few members, but none of them have ever expressed anger to this degree. If any members actually do feel this way they should contact me so that I can reevaluate my position on it.

Um hello, but do I not count? Am I not a member of this site? Do I sound like I adore the concept of bullying people like this?

Do you reckon that people like being labelled as 'stupid'? Maybe you should make an appearance on the show...

But so far, the opinions I've gotten from members contacting me has been mostly of support. While much of it has also been reluctant support, it has been far from saying that it shouldn't be allowed.

It's not about what is popular, it's about what is right, and this isn't right.

Or even better, we could make people feel miserable about their lives to the point where they don't want to be :alive anymore! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! How funny would that be!? LMFAO!!!!!

This is fairly melodramatic and unnecessary. I take these types of issues very seriously, and if a member who is using this site is being harmed by the site to this extent they should discontinue their use of it. While I certainly don't condone any behavior that would potentially cause psychological damage to anyone, members need to use a certain amount of discretion in recognizing if a site based upon heated arguments is something they can handle mentally.

What possible good could come from calling people stupid? Why not explain why you disagree with what the person said, instead of putting them in a circus for you to laugh at? You know, why not have a rational debate, instead of this dishonorable, cheap-shotting show? I'm not saying that you can't criticise people, I'm saying that this form of criticism isn't necessary and should be banned.

The nature of the site is to accommodate heated arguments, while we certainly want to facilitate a civil and healthy atmosphere, sometimes those arguments can become too much for some. It is in the nature of some individuals to take issues too personally, and to take personal offense in disagreements. Those types of individuals should certainly limit their use of the site.

Where did you copy and paste this double-talk from?

In the context of this particular issue, I would also say that members need to be a bit thick skinned to not only handle DDO, but also the internet in general. While I certainly don't condone personal attacks, stating that a statement is unwise (or stupid as the case may be) facilitates an argument about it, and that's what the site is about.

Yep, it's the responsibility of the victim to not complain.

So I don't believe anything you said above accurately describes the situation. The Weekly Stupid might not be ideal, but it certainly hasn't run anyone off the site, and anyone who has the types of emotional problem that may cause them to bring harm upon themselves by their use of the site or viewing something like the Weekly Stupid should limit (if not outright discontinue) their use of the site.

More victim blaming.

"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher

At 1/13/2014 12:22:08 AM, Caploxion wrote:Oh boy, sign me up! I'd just love to belittle people whom have different opinions to me!

I don't believe the show focuses on difference of opinions. It certainly doesn't differentiate between any right-left political dynamic or any other. While some may have been borderline, I don't think I've ever seen something that most would consider a simple difference of opinion. While that may have been the case in a few instances, I think the show focuses mostly on statements that were clearly not well thought out.

If there's one thing that I've learned in life, it's that the best solutions are often counter-intuitive. With this show, the focus is on the superficial meaning, the visceral reaction, rather than the carefully considered thought. Maybe people involved with the production of the show could give thought as to why the person making the comment decided to say it, instead of immediately lambasting it.

I don't necessarily disagree, and I certainly have my issues with the show. I just disagree with how you framed it. In this case I do think that thought is given to the statements and it's not just reactionary. It has to be considered and weighed against other statements. It's then dissected for it's use on the show. Most of the time it seems these are just statement made by people who didn't think them through. Those people have plenty of opportunity to defend those statements though, and it's certainly great when they do. In fact recently it lead to a great debate between Bench and one of the people featured.

Maybe we could even make a few people so angry that they leave the site!

If this was a serious risk from the show it wouldn't be allowed, but I don't believe this is the case. If I'm wrong I'd like to be proven wrong, as it certainly would be a problem then. From what I can tell, a very small percentage of the site actually knows it exists, and those who are put on the show somewhat regularly are still around. I've gotten complaints from a few members, but none of them have ever expressed anger to this degree. If any members actually do feel this way they should contact me so that I can reevaluate my position on it.

Um hello, but do I not count? Am I not a member of this site? Do I sound like I adore the concept of bullying people like this?

You do count, and I appreciate that you have shared your opinion. My problem is the framing of the opinion you have asserted. That this show even potentially leads to suicide is a major claim.

Do you reckon that people like being labelled as 'stupid'? Maybe you should make an appearance on the show...

I don't think that the people are being labeled as stupid, simply the statements. Even that I think is simply for marketability. Calling it "The Weekly, this statement wasn't well thought-out and should be strongly reconsidered by the author" wouldn't be very popular. Often statement described like that are thought of as stupid. I don't personally like framing it that way, but it is what it is. While I'm certainly also not entirely comfortable with it, I wouldn't frame it the way you have and that's what I'm disagreeing with.

But so far, the opinions I've gotten from members contacting me has been mostly of support. While much of it has also been reluctant support, it has been far from saying that it shouldn't be allowed.

It's not about what is popular, it's about what is right, and this isn't right.

What I've heard from you is that it isn't right because it is bullying and some might commit suicide because of it. I believe both of these are incorrect. It's controversial to be sure, but on a site where you can debate any number of controversial topics, I'm not sure how this isn't within reason on this site. Debates are reported all the time for things that offend people and I don't remove them. We are either permissive or we aren't, and while this show isn't ideal, it's controversy is a natural part of the site in general.

Or even better, we could make people feel miserable about their lives to the point where they don't want to be :alive anymore! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! How funny would that be!? LMFAO!!!!!

This is fairly melodramatic and unnecessary. I take these types of issues very seriously, and if a member who is using this site is being harmed by the site to this extent they should discontinue their use of it. While I certainly don't condone any behavior that would potentially cause psychological damage to anyone, members need to use a certain amount of discretion in recognizing if a site based upon heated arguments is something they can handle mentally.

What possible good could come from calling people stupid? Why not explain why you disagree with what the person said, instead of putting them in a circus for you to laugh at? You know, why not have a rational debate, instead of this dishonorable, cheap-shotting show? I'm not saying that you can't criticise people, I'm saying that this form of criticism isn't necessary and should be banned.

I certainly respect that perspective, though often the types of things presented aren't really arguable. In the thousands of posts some are just ridiculous and they are compiled in a method that is as you have put it. Those members who have their statements presented though have the opportunity to defend it, The thread the show is posted to allows anyone to defend their statement and they often do.

The nature of the site is to accommodate heated arguments, while we certainly want to facilitate a civil and healthy atmosphere, sometimes those arguments can become too much for some. It is in the nature of some individuals to take issues too personally, and to take personal offense in disagreements. Those types of individuals should certainly limit their use of the site.

Where did you copy and paste this double-talk from?

Excuse me?

I recognize the problems with a show of this nature. I am torn between your position and not wanting to over-censor the site. The position I have taken is due to the feedback I have gotten from members who often are reluctant to allow it too, but don't want it removed and the fact that the site is about debate and this often facilitates it. It's not ideal, but relegating the show to this forum I think makes it more acceptable. That's certainly not an excuse for anything negative, but I don't think it's as negative as you are stating.

In the context of this particular issue, I would also say that members need to be a bit thick skinned to not only handle DDO, but also the internet in general. While I certainly don't condone personal attacks, stating that a statement is unwise (or stupid as the case may be) facilitates an argument about it, and that's what the site is about.

Yep, it's the responsibility of the victim to not complain.

I don't believe I said such a thing. Someone featured on the show can put Bench in his place like Roy did in his recent debate with him, and members can do so in the thread the show is posted to.

So I don't believe anything you said above accurately describes the situation. The Weekly Stupid might not be ideal, but it certainly hasn't run anyone off the site, and anyone who has the types of emotional problem that may cause them to bring harm upon themselves by their use of the site or viewing something like the Weekly Stupid should limit (if not outright discontinue) their use of the site.

More victim blaming.

I'm not blaming anyone. One is capable of accepting something might offend them or they aren't. The latter group might find this site hard to cope with. The show is doubtlessly controversial and may offend some. I've taken the position that I have until given a reason to otherwise.

At 1/13/2014 12:22:08 AM, Caploxion wrote:Oh boy, sign me up! I'd just love to belittle people whom have different opinions to me!

I don't believe the show focuses on difference of opinions. It certainly doesn't differentiate between any right-left political dynamic or any other. While some may have been borderline, I don't think I've ever seen something that most would consider a simple difference of opinion. While that may have been the case in a few instances, I think the show focuses mostly on statements that were clearly not well thought out.

If there's one thing that I've learned in life, it's that the best solutions are often counter-intuitive. With this show, the focus is on the superficial meaning, the visceral reaction, rather than the carefully considered thought. Maybe people involved with the production of the show could give thought as to why the person making the comment decided to say it, instead of immediately lambasting it.

This is probably the most intelligent comment I've read on this website about this website in a very long while.

Maybe we could even make a few people so angry that they leave the site!

If this was a serious risk from the show it wouldn't be allowed, but I don't believe this is the case. If I'm wrong I'd like to be proven wrong, as it certainly would be a problem then.

The problem with this reasoning is that the proof is what is not there. So, the question becomes, "would membership and debating increase if not for this show?" The only way to find out is to cancel the show.

I would then also point out that this is only a microcosm of the more general question of whether or not this website would improve by actually implementing and following the stated TOS. It's a difficult question to answer, and I respect your opinion on it, regardless of whether or not I agree with it.

From what I can tell, a very small percentage of the site actually knows it exists, and those who are put on the show somewhat regularly are still around. I've gotten complaints from a few members, but none of them have ever expressed anger to this degree. If any members actually do feel this way they should contact me so that I can reevaluate my position on it.

Um hello, but do I not count? Am I not a member of this site? Do I sound like I adore the concept of bullying people like this?

Do you reckon that people like being labelled as 'stupid'? Maybe you should make an appearance on the show...

There is this prima facie element of truth in this statement, although personally I've never watched an episode of this show.

But so far, the opinions I've gotten from members contacting me has been mostly of support. While much of it has also been reluctant support, it has been far from saying that it shouldn't be allowed.

It's not about what is popular, it's about what is right, and this isn't right.

Unfortunately I disagree here, and I'm sure Juggle would too. If this show attracts more people onto this website than the lack of it, I'm fairly certain Juggle wouldn't mind the existence of this show.

Or even better, we could make people feel miserable about their lives to the point where they don't want to be :alive anymore! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! How funny would that be!? LMFAO!!!!!

This is fairly melodramatic and unnecessary. I take these types of issues very seriously, and if a member who is using this site is being harmed by the site to this extent they should discontinue their use of it. While I certainly don't condone any behavior that would potentially cause psychological damage to anyone, members need to use a certain amount of discretion in recognizing if a site based upon heated arguments is something they can handle mentally.

What possible good could come from calling people stupid? Why not explain why you disagree with what the person said, instead of putting them in a circus for you to laugh at? You know, why not have a rational debate, instead of this dishonorable, cheap-shotting show? I'm not saying that you can't criticise people, I'm saying that this form of criticism isn't necessary and should be banned.

I agree with both of you here, especially the underlined.

The nature of the site is to accommodate heated arguments, while we certainly want to facilitate a civil and healthy atmosphere, sometimes those arguments can become too much for some. It is in the nature of some individuals to take issues too personally, and to take personal offense in disagreements. Those types of individuals should certainly limit their use of the site.

Calling someone else "stupid" is taking personal offense in disagreements. By this argument, Bench should limit his use of this site.

Where did you copy and paste this double-talk from?

In the context of this particular issue, I would also say that members need to be a bit thick skinned to not only handle DDO, but also the internet in general. While I certainly don't condone personal attacks, stating that a statement is unwise (or stupid as the case may be) facilitates an argument about it, and that's what the site is about.

Yep, it's the responsibility of the victim to not complain.

Agree this is unfortunately the standard that this website seems to currently promote.

Calling a statement stupid does not facilitate an argument about it. If anything, it shuts down discussion of a topic.

Calling someone a liar does not facilitate an argument about whatever issue is claimed to be an intentional falsehood. If anything it shuts down discussion of a topic.

Etc...

What actually encourages discussion of a topic is offering a counter-argument from which further discussion can continue. "Stupid" is not a counter-argument, is not constructive criticism, and does not forward a discussion.

So I don't believe anything you said above accurately describes the situation. The Weekly Stupid might not be ideal, but it certainly hasn't run anyone off the site

Your proof of this?

...and anyone who has the types of emotional problem that may cause them to bring harm upon themselves by their use of the site or viewing something like the Weekly Stupid should limit (if not outright discontinue) their use of the site.

This I do agree with.

More victim blaming.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

So I don't believe anything you said above accurately describes the situation. The Weekly Stupid might not be ideal, but it certainly hasn't run anyone off the site

Your proof of this?

I will simply add that you have directly proven the opposite, that you are using the WS as a litmus test to see who you should be running off this website, or at least politely recommending that they go elsewhere.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 1/12/2014 7:26:39 PM, imabench wrote:The last one got derailed by a couple of idiots who combined have a brain cell count of negative 6, so im moving this thing to over here since the old one is pending deletion.

For those who dont know what im talking about, The Weekly Stupid returns this Friday, and ive always had a group of people on a committee in a PM to help me decide what should + shouldnt be on the top 10, and which spots each statement should come in. Its been a while though, to the point where some people who were in the group have actually left the site while others were booted for not even posting in them.....So im opening up signups again for people who wanna help make the show. Only condition is that YOU CANT BE AN IDIOT or anyone else at a genuine risk of ending up in the top 10....

This is the currently list of people who signed up. I have 11, ill probably stop at around 13 or so, so if you want one of the last two spots then just say so

I am always interested in participating in the Weekly Stupid committee. My contributions may vary in their worthlessness, but being a part of this is one of the more amusing things I affiliate with.

I think this will be, maybe, the second time I've been on the committee?

This is the kind of committee I'm alright with. Only for things that serve this kind of function... mocking idiocy wherever it exists.

If people don't like it, they are free to leave -or reform, that they may not find themselves on The Weekly Stupid... but hey, there are some people who bask in being a fuckwit, and yet there are others who are so fuckwitted that they are not even able to recognize their own fuckwittedness.

So I don't believe anything you said above accurately describes the situation. The Weekly Stupid might not be ideal, but it certainly hasn't run anyone off the site

Your proof of this?

I will simply add that you have directly proven the opposite, that you are using the WS as a litmus test to see who you should be running off this website, or at least politely recommending that they go elsewhere.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to be offended by the WS, though what you are referring to was in the context of members potentially committing suicide. Certainly you recognize the difference here. Independent of this particular issue, I'd use the ability to handle criticism/arguments/disagreement and not have significant mental anguish leading to suicide to be a litmus test of who should be using the site.

I don't have any proof, though what I do know is who are the members that have complained (and they are still around). If they kept it to themselves and then left the site because of the show I wouldn't know, and I hope that's not the case.

I've said this since the show started, if members want the show gone all they have to do is let me know. I imagine a fair amount that don't just aren't telling me. But a significant amount have told me they want it to remain, even though they recognize the issues and the controversy. They too realize it isn't ideal, but don't consider it as significant a problem as some, and not significant enough to not allow.

Personally, I have no horse in this. If members want it gone, that's fine with me (and actually preferable to me for many reasons). But that's not the feedback I'm getting. Occasionally a passionate member states their disagreement with it, but otherwise from what I can tell most are indifferent or in favor of it remaining.

At 1/13/2014 12:22:08 AM, Caploxion wrote:Oh boy, sign me up! I'd just love to belittle people whom have different opinions to me! Maybe we could even make a few people so angry that they leave the site! Or even better, we could make people feel miserable about their lives to the point where they don't want to be alive anymore! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! How funny would that be!? LMFAO!!!!!

There is tremendous irony in this post -irony found in that it is mocking something it disagrees with, on the basis that it disagrees with mocking something it disagrees with. This is precisely the kind of material the Weekly Stupid was made for. Please, do post more frequently. The Weekly Stupid always needs more material, and you seem exactly like the kind of user who would give us much to work with.

So I don't believe anything you said above accurately describes the situation. The Weekly Stupid might not be ideal, but it certainly hasn't run anyone off the site

Your proof of this?

I will simply add that you have directly proven the opposite, that you are using the WS as a litmus test to see who you should be running off this website, or at least politely recommending that they go elsewhere.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to be offended by the WS, though what you are referring to was in the context of members potentially committing suicide. Certainly you recognize the difference here. Independent of this particular issue, I'd use the ability to handle criticism/arguments/disagreement and not have significant mental anguish leading to suicide to be a litmus test of who should be using the site.

I don't have any proof, though what I do know is who are the members that have complained (and they are still around). If they kept it to themselves and then left the site because of the show I wouldn't know, and I hope that's not the case.

I've said this since the show started, if members want the show gone all they have to do is let me know. I imagine a fair amount that don't just aren't telling me. But a significant amount have told me they want it to remain, even though they recognize the issues and the controversy. They too realize it isn't ideal, but don't consider it as significant a problem as some, and not significant enough to not allow.

Personally, I have no horse in this. If members want it gone, that's fine with me (and actually preferable to me for many reasons). But that's not the feedback I'm getting. Occasionally a passionate member states their disagreement with it, but otherwise from what I can tell most are indifferent or in favor of it remaining.

I recognize this as a fair reply. I think you cover the PRO/CONs very well.

Personally, I wouldn't mind the show's existence, if it was clearly labeled a trolling show.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 1/13/2014 12:22:08 AM, Caploxion wrote:Oh boy, sign me up! I'd just love to belittle people whom have different opinions to me!

If there's one thing that I've learned in life, it's that the best solutions are often counter-intuitive. With this show, the focus is on the superficial meaning, the visceral reaction, rather than the carefully considered thought.

Perhaps you carefully considered the irony of your first post... if you did, and made it knowing that it was so ironic, then you're a hypocrite. If you did, not realizing the irony, then that speaks volumes of your ability to critically consider -and the things it says are not good. If you failed to critically consider that first post, and realized the irony, then you're not more than a troll. If you failed to critically consider that first post, and failed to grasp the irony, then there is utterly no hope for you at all. Which is it? inquiring minds want to know.

At 1/13/2014 12:22:08 AM, Caploxion wrote:Oh boy, sign me up! I'd just love to belittle people whom have different opinions to me! Maybe we could even make a few people so angry that they leave the site! Or even better, we could make people feel miserable about their lives to the point where they don't want to be alive anymore! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! How funny would that be!? LMFAO!!!!!

There is tremendous irony in this post -irony found in that it is mocking something it disagrees with, on the basis that it disagrees with mocking something it disagrees with.

My God! You're right! How foolish I must look! I'm so glad that someone is thinking of the show's feelings, because they are certainly comparable to human feelings. I apologise to the show for being slanderous towards it.

"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher

Perhaps there should be a rule of the internet that all trolling must be clearly marked, for the same reason a hand-held drill must carry a warning that it is not to be used as a dental instrument, that trash bags may cause suffocation, that coffee is hot or that pizza's, when they come out of the oven, have the curious tendency to cause burns if consumed immediately.

At 1/13/2014 12:22:08 AM, Caploxion wrote:Oh boy, sign me up! I'd just love to belittle people whom have different opinions to me! Maybe we could even make a few people so angry that they leave the site! Or even better, we could make people feel miserable about their lives to the point where they don't want to be alive anymore! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! How funny would that be!? LMFAO!!!!!

There is tremendous irony in this post -irony found in that it is mocking something it disagrees with, on the basis that it disagrees with mocking something it disagrees with. This is precisely the kind of material the Weekly Stupid was made for. Please, do post more frequently. The Weekly Stupid always needs more material, and you seem exactly like the kind of user who would give us much to work with.

So I don't believe anything you said above accurately describes the situation. The Weekly Stupid might not be ideal, but it certainly hasn't run anyone off the site

Your proof of this?

I will simply add that you have directly proven the opposite, that you are using the WS as a litmus test to see who you should be running off this website, or at least politely recommending that they go elsewhere.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to be offended by the WS, though what you are referring to was in the context of members potentially committing suicide. Certainly you recognize the difference here. Independent of this particular issue, I'd use the ability to handle criticism/arguments/disagreement and not have significant mental anguish leading to suicide to be a litmus test of who should be using the site.

Hmmm...after thinking about this, I think this runs up upon a legal quandary.

This site has a stated TOS, regardless of whether or not that TOS is actively enforced. That TOS legally binds Juggle to its members, and vice versa.

If it's found that this website was indeed directly responsible for something like someone's suicide, and if it was found that such an act was the direct result of Juggle's failure to comply with its own TOS (i.e. prevent harassment), then Juggle would potentially become legally liable for this person's suicide.

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 1/13/2014 12:22:08 AM, Caploxion wrote:Oh boy, sign me up! I'd just love to belittle people whom have different opinions to me!

If there's one thing that I've learned in life, it's that the best solutions are often counter-intuitive. With this show, the focus is on the superficial meaning, the visceral reaction, rather than the carefully considered thought.

Perhaps you carefully considered the irony of your first post... if you did, and made it knowing that it was so ironic, then you're a hypocrite. If you did, not realizing the irony, then that speaks volumes of your ability to critically consider -and the things it says are not good. If you failed to critically consider that first post, and realized the irony, then you're not more than a troll. If you failed to critically consider that first post, and failed to grasp the irony, then there is utterly no hope for you at all. Which is it? inquiring minds want to know.

You really want to start something with me, don't you? 'Hohoho, don't you see the irony in complaining about trolling, and then going out of your way to troll hohoho hohoh oh oh oho ho ho h look guys, look at how I flipped the meaning around hohohoohoh'. See, buddy?- I can play that silly game you like to play: miss the point. So, I'm not going to lower myself to responding to your loaded question; you've already burnt enough of my time. Goodbye.

"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher

At 1/13/2014 12:22:08 AM, Caploxion wrote:Oh boy, sign me up! I'd just love to belittle people whom have different opinions to me!

If there's one thing that I've learned in life, it's that the best solutions are often counter-intuitive. With this show, the focus is on the superficial meaning, the visceral reaction, rather than the carefully considered thought.

Perhaps you carefully considered the irony of your first post... if you did, and made it knowing that it was so ironic, then you're a hypocrite. If you did, not realizing the irony, then that speaks volumes of your ability to critically consider -and the things it says are not good. If you failed to critically consider that first post, and realized the irony, then you're not more than a troll. If you failed to critically consider that first post, and failed to grasp the irony, then there is utterly no hope for you at all. Which is it? inquiring minds want to know.

You really want to start something with me, don't you?

I'm quite a fan of the dance, as it were.

'Hohoho, don't you see the irony in complaining about trolling,

You ignorant creature, I do not complain about trolling. I embrace it as the way of the internet.

and then going out of your way to troll hohoho hohoh oh oh oho ho ho h look guys, look at how I flipped the meaning around hohohoohoh'.

You huff and puff.... and get nowhere, because you've said nothing.

See, buddy?- I can play that silly game you like to play: miss the point.

I'm not your buddy. I'm a guy on the internet who found your post to be amusing, for among other qualities, its irony. And now, I'm the guy who apparently you feel outclassed by, which is evident in the way you've changed your tone. I suspect you'll proceed to take the moral high ground next.

Oh, there it is. You, pretending to take the moral high ground. Have it! It's yours! I prefer the gutters anyway. It's much more honest, there. Much less bullsh!t, or, if there is any bullsh!t, it is self-aware as bullsh!t.

So I don't believe anything you said above accurately describes the situation. The Weekly Stupid might not be ideal, but it certainly hasn't run anyone off the site

Your proof of this?

I will simply add that you have directly proven the opposite, that you are using the WS as a litmus test to see who you should be running off this website, or at least politely recommending that they go elsewhere.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to be offended by the WS, though what you are referring to was in the context of members potentially committing suicide. Certainly you recognize the difference here. Independent of this particular issue, I'd use the ability to handle criticism/arguments/disagreement and not have significant mental anguish leading to suicide to be a litmus test of who should be using the site.

Hmmm...after thinking about this, I think this runs up upon a legal quandary.

This site has a stated TOS, regardless of whether or not that TOS is actively enforced. That TOS legally binds Juggle to its members, and vice versa.

If it's found that this website was indeed directly responsible for something like someone's suicide, and if it was found that such an act was the direct result of Juggle's failure to comply with its own TOS (i.e. prevent harassment), then Juggle would potentially become legally liable for this person's suicide.

So I don't believe anything you said above accurately describes the situation. The Weekly Stupid might not be ideal, but it certainly hasn't run anyone off the site

Your proof of this?

I will simply add that you have directly proven the opposite, that you are using the WS as a litmus test to see who you should be running off this website, or at least politely recommending that they go elsewhere.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to be offended by the WS, though what you are referring to was in the context of members potentially committing suicide. Certainly you recognize the difference here. Independent of this particular issue, I'd use the ability to handle criticism/arguments/disagreement and not have significant mental anguish leading to suicide to be a litmus test of who should be using the site.

Hmmm...after thinking about this, I think this runs up upon a legal quandary.

This site has a stated TOS, regardless of whether or not that TOS is actively enforced. That TOS legally binds Juggle to its members, and vice versa.

If it's found that this website was indeed directly responsible for something like someone's suicide, and if it was found that such an act was the direct result of Juggle's failure to comply with its own TOS (i.e. prevent harassment), then Juggle would potentially become legally liable for this person's suicide.

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

You are wrong. Read the portion "Limitation on Liability".

Very interesting:

" Juggle reserves the right, but has no obligation, to monitor disputes between you and other Members or users. If you have a dispute with one or more Members or users, you release Debate.org and Juggle (and our officers, directors, agents, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates) from claims, demands, and damages (actual and consequential) of every kind and nature, known and unknown, arising out of or in any way connected with such dispute."

"Juggle'S ENTIRE LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ANY CAUSE OR ACTION WHATSOEVER, AND YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, SHALL AT ALL TIMES BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT PAID, IF ANY, BY YOU TO Juggle FOR THE SERVICE DURING THE TERM OF MEMBERSHIP."

Love the all-caps when it comes to liability specifically, lol. This is similar to something I read about Craigslist, although on Craigslist they do not even have a code of conduct or anything even close to the delineation of responsibilities that this site has.

This is generally why I'm glad I don't get too involved in site governance. I really have no business doing so, and that's something I realized long before I even knew about this website. I just voice my opinion and let that stand for whatever it's worth.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 1/13/2014 12:22:08 AM, Caploxion wrote:Oh boy, sign me up! I'd just love to belittle people whom have different opinions to me!

I don't believe the show focuses on difference of opinions. It certainly doesn't differentiate between any right-left political dynamic or any other. While some may have been borderline, I don't think I've ever seen something that most would consider a simple difference of opinion. While that may have been the case in a few instances, I think the show focuses mostly on statements that were clearly not well thought out.

If there's one thing that I've learned in life, it's that the best solutions are often counter-intuitive. With this show, the focus is on the superficial meaning, the visceral reaction, rather than the carefully considered thought. Maybe people involved with the production of the show could give thought as to why the person making the comment decided to say it, instead of immediately lambasting it.

That's so true. But honestly, imabench and the people on his committee aren't the brightest sparks in the bushfire, let's put it that way. I only know a few on the list, but there's one or two there that are probably happiest urinating at a bus stop or padding about the city staring creepily at strangers. This is possibly the closest they get to feeling included and part of a group. "Carefully considered thought" is probably too big an ask.

Maybe we could even make a few people so angry that they leave the site!

If this was a serious risk from the show it wouldn't be allowed, but I don't believe this is the case. If I'm wrong I'd like to be proven wrong, as it certainly would be a problem then. From what I can tell, a very small percentage of the site actually knows it exists, and those who are put on the show somewhat regularly are still around. I've gotten complaints from a few members, but none of them have ever expressed anger to this degree. If any members actually do feel this way they should contact me so that I can reevaluate my position on it.

Um hello, but do I not count? Am I not a member of this site? Do I sound like I adore the concept of bullying people like this?

Do you reckon that people like being labelled as 'stupid'? Maybe you should make an appearance on the show...

But so far, the opinions I've gotten from members contacting me has been mostly of support. While much of it has also been reluctant support, it has been far from saying that it shouldn't be allowed.

It's not about what is popular, it's about what is right, and this isn't right.

Or even better, we could make people feel miserable about their lives to the point where they don't want to be :alive anymore! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! How funny would that be!? LMFAO!!!!!

This is fairly melodramatic and unnecessary. I take these types of issues very seriously, and if a member who is using this site is being harmed by the site to this extent they should discontinue their use of it. While I certainly don't condone any behavior that would potentially cause psychological damage to anyone, members need to use a certain amount of discretion in recognizing if a site based upon heated arguments is something they can handle mentally.

What possible good could come from calling people stupid? Why not explain why you disagree with what the person said, instead of putting them in a circus for you to laugh at? You know, why not have a rational debate, instead of this dishonorable, cheap-shotting show? I'm not saying that you can't criticise people, I'm saying that this form of criticism isn't necessary and should be banned.

Yeah. I saw a weekly stupid episode when I first started here, and it was just imabench talking about stuff and it seemed harmless. But this whole jury/committee thing with their secret decisions is potentially more sinister. It seems a bit cowardly to me, actually. Imabench should just come out with his opinions and stand by them instead of hiding behind secret group discussions like this.

The nature of the site is to accommodate heated arguments, while we certainly want to facilitate a civil and healthy atmosphere, sometimes those arguments can become too much for some. It is in the nature of some individuals to take issues too personally, and to take personal offense in disagreements. Those types of individuals should certainly limit their use of the site.

Where did you copy and paste this double-talk from?

In the context of this particular issue, I would also say that members need to be a bit thick skinned to not only handle DDO, but also the internet in general. While I certainly don't condone personal attacks, stating that a statement is unwise (or stupid as the case may be) facilitates an argument about it, and that's what the site is about.

Are people even informed that they're on the weekly stupid? Maybe Imabench should let them know in advance, and maybe even talk it over with them beforehand.

Yep, it's the responsibility of the victim to not complain.

So I don't believe anything you said above accurately describes the situation. The Weekly Stupid might not be ideal, but it certainly hasn't run anyone off the site, and anyone who has the types of emotional problem that may cause them to bring harm upon themselves by their use of the site or viewing something like the Weekly Stupid should limit (if not outright discontinue) their use of the site.

More victim blaming.

I agree. I really don't like this comment from Airmax. First he says that he'll listen to anyone who has problems with the weekly stupid, but two breaths later it's all about people with "emotional problems" who should limit their use of the site.

And there's no way it "certainly hasn't run anyone off the site". How would you even know?

At 1/13/2014 12:22:08 AM, Caploxion wrote:Oh boy, sign me up! I'd just love to belittle people whom have different opinions to me! Maybe we could even make a few people so angry that they leave the site! Or even better, we could make people feel miserable about their lives to the point where they don't want to be alive anymore! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! How funny would that be!? LMFAO!!!!!

At 1/12/2014 7:26:39 PM, imabench wrote:The last one got derailed by a couple of idiots who combined have a brain cell count of negative 6, so im moving this thing to over here since the old one is pending deletion.

For those who dont know what im talking about, The Weekly Stupid returns this Friday, and ive always had a group of people on a committee in a PM to help me decide what should + shouldnt be on the top 10, and which spots each statement should come in. Its been a while though, to the point where some people who were in the group have actually left the site while others were booted for not even posting in them.....So im opening up signups again for people who wanna help make the show. Only condition is that YOU CANT BE AN IDIOT or anyone else at a genuine risk of ending up in the top 10....

This is the currently list of people who signed up. I have 11, ill probably stop at around 13 or so, so if you want one of the last two spots then just say so

At 1/13/2014 12:22:08 AM, Caploxion wrote:Oh boy, sign me up! I'd just love to belittle people whom have different opinions to me!

It is NOT about people who have different opinions. It is about people who have illogical opinions that defy common sense.The whole point of having a committee is that the "stupid quotes" are put under careful consideration before being put on the show. They aren't just lambasting it without thinking it through.

Maybe we could even make a few people so angry that they leave the site! Or even better, we could make people feel miserable about their lives to the point where they don't want to be alive anymore!

Only people with severe emotional problems (like you, apparently) would commit suicide over something as petty as a Youtube video making fun of one of their quotes.

A NORMAL person would take it as an opportunity to defend their views.

HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! How funny would that be!? LMFAO!!!!!

On your profile, you claim to be the goddess of mercy, but I think you're more of a goddess of whining.You should stop. No one cares about your opinion on this subject. The show is hilarious and it isn't going to go anywhere no matter how much you whine.

It isn't bullying. It's comedy. And if you can't take it, then you don't have to watch it.

Yeah. I saw a weekly stupid episode when I first started here, and it was just imabench talking about stuff and it seemed harmless. But this whole jury/committee thing with their secret decisions is potentially more sinister. It seems a bit cowardly to me, actually. Imabench should just come out with his opinions and stand by them instead of hiding behind secret group discussions like this.

Are you an idiot? The point of the group is purely to help better determine which statements are and aren't stupid and how they should be organized, not as some nefarious scheme I can hide behind plotting or whatever you said this group does...

The nature of the site is to accommodate heated arguments, while we certainly want to facilitate a civil and healthy atmosphere, sometimes those arguments can become too much for some. It is in the nature of some individuals to take issues too personally, and to take personal offense in disagreements. Those types of individuals should certainly limit their use of the site.

Are people even informed that they're on the weekly stupid?

Nope

Maybe Imabench should let them know in advance, and maybe even talk it over with them beforehand.

The show exists for entertainment, not as a damn fact-checking hobby. The average stupidity of people who end up on the list in any episode makes it so that notifying them is t even worth the time and effort.

I agree. I really don't like this comment from Airmax. First he says that he'll listen to anyone who has problems with the weekly stupid, but two breaths later it's all about people with "emotional problems" who should limit their use of the site.

And there's no way it "certainly hasn't run anyone off the site". How would you even know?

Name someone who did, if you cant think of one person then you have your proof

Calling a statement stupid does not facilitate an argument about it. If anything, it shuts down discussion of a topic.

Calling someone a liar does not facilitate an argument about whatever issue is claimed to be an intentional falsehood. If anything it shuts down discussion of a topic.

Etc...

What actually encourages discussion of a topic is offering a counter-argument from which further discussion can continue. "Stupid" is not a counter-argument, is not constructive criticism, and does not forward a discussion.

The point of the weekly stupid though isn't to facilitate discussion though, which is kinda sad if you haven't figured that out until now. The point of the show is to serve as cheap entertainment, end of story.

So I don't believe anything you said above accurately describes the situation. The Weekly Stupid might not be ideal, but it certainly hasn't run anyone off the site